Letter to PM on Keeping NZ Nuclear-Free
from Larry Ross
| 5 September
2003 Rt. Hon. Helen Clark Prime Minister Parliament WELLINGTON Dear Helen, I sympathise with you regarding the many contentious issues confronting the Government from the foreshore debate, the keep New Zealand nuclear-free debate to extend the GE moratorium debate. Firstly, a short word on the GE debate. I have examined a lot of data and listened to some authorities, one of whom is having a book released on the resources of genetic engineering in four weeks. I conclude that it would be very much in New Zealands interest to extend the moratorium for at least another two years. If that cannot be managed then I think the adverse affects of the present debate would still be reduced, if it was only an extension of one year. The Greens might be a real ally if the present dispute can be resolved before the next election. However, my main reason for writing is to keep New Zealand nuclear-free and to present any new reasons for this position. Firstly, various authorities have said that there is a greater danger today from nuclear weapons use than at any time since 1945. This is mainly because of the new nuclear doctrines introduced by the Bush Administration in their Nuclear Posture Review and in their various strategic analysis documents. They intend to make nuclear weapons a more useable battlefield option offered to the American military. No longer are nuclear weapons considered a last resort. They have become more of a useable type of weapon for any disputes which are judged to warrant them by the Bush Administration. Also, to facilitate the new policy they are introducing and researching various so-called mini-nuke weapons such as bunker-bustersand gamma-ray weapons (New Scientist, 16/8/03). This revolutionary new nuclear policy is called by Dr Bernard Lown of the IPPNW as a "seismic change in US nuclear policy". Unfortunately, it is not yet well enough known and there are not enough alarm bells ringing where they should. The new policies make it much more likely that nuclear weapons will be used and more likely to encourage arms proliferation. If the US says it detects arms proliferation they have licensed themselves to intervene. That can mean war including nuclear weapons use. The new nuclear doctrines by themselves are very alarming. Even more alarming is Bushs doctrine of pre-emptive war, possibly using nuclear weapons. If in the judgement of the Bush Administration, they say they believe a potential enemy is clandestinely getting ready to strike at the US with weapons of mass destruction of some kind they will strike first. The Bush Administration has ruled that any weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is justification for the US to use nuclear weapons in response. With the doctrine of pre-emptive war, the Bush Administration has reserved to itself, without UN consultation, the right to initiate strikes against another nation based on its proclaimed suspicions or what is often referred to as secret intelligence. Often so-called secret intelligencethat cannot be revealed, is no more than a fabrication to justify an attack. An example is the US and British attack on Iraq. Phony intelligence is often used for this purpose and so far seems to have worked to dampen down and disparage any criticism. Both of these developments, the new nuclear policies and pre-emptive war policies are extremely alarming. Added to that must be the information mentioned in the Nuclear Posture Review that the US has identified about seven nations, including its so-called axis of evilnations as possibly deserving nuclear attack. They have also identified about three situations where the US could use nuclear weapons:
|
